|
Post by StarOpal on Jul 2, 2007 15:44:53 GMT -5
Sue, that review made me laugh out loud. Espescially the parts about "An Arabian sheik who looks amazingly like Omar Sharif (cause he is)", "Hidalgo, the John McClane of the equine world", and the captions. That third one fits the picture so perfectly.
Oh, and there was an actual "review" about a "movie" in there as well... And that was okay too I guess....
Great job, Sue!
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on Jul 3, 2007 1:20:18 GMT -5
The bit about the come-on nicker was absolutely priceless. A fine example of the handiness of esoteric knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on Jul 3, 2007 2:26:05 GMT -5
Hilarious. A lovely bit of writing. The come-on nicker had me going, too.
About the Spanish mustangs, though... Speaking as a biologist who admittedly doesn't much care for horses, I've never gotten that. Horses of any kind, including mustangs, aren't native to the United States. In fact, they damage lands and graze that should belong to other species that DO belong here. Why???
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Jul 3, 2007 5:46:38 GMT -5
Ooooh, I have esoteric knowledge! I never knew! Is there a... a salve for that or something?
The thing about the Spanish Mustangs is not that they're native to North America, because they aren't, but that they are the direct descendants of the horses of the conquistadors. They carry one less vertebrae than most breeds (excluding Arabians and, I think, Andalusians, Lusitanos, Paso Finos and Sorraias) and they have very distinctive "Spanish" conformation. Many of them also exhibit distinctively Spanish gaits, such as the single-foot or the paso. They are extremely tough and very hardy, and they don't look a bit like the horse(s) in the movie.
By and large, the mustang herds that weren't eradicated were intentionally watered down with introduction of other blood - mostly draft, so that the Native Americans would only have horses suitable for farming, not combat - so a pure Spanish mustang is rare. There are only a few pockets of them left - including the Kiger horses which were found in Oregon in 1977. (The cartoon horse in Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron was based on a Kiger stallion.)
Granted, feral horses do damage the land to some extent, but they certainly aren't as hard on grazing land as... like... cattle. (Which aren't native either to the U.S. either.) Okay, without cattle, we don't eat, but the horse was invaluable for transportation, exploration, herd management and hunting. A little belated gratitude would not be amiss - which is partially why the BLM now puts problem herds up for adoption whenever possible, instead of just exterminating them.
But I'm getting a little off track.
Anyway, it's basically a conquistador thing.
Thanks guys! I had fun writing this one.
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on Jul 3, 2007 14:20:43 GMT -5
Oh, so it's a breed thing. That makes sense.
I'd think it just as silly if there were a "They must run free!" movie about wild cows.
Actually, that would be hilarious.
Good review.
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on Jul 3, 2007 22:08:40 GMT -5
Ooh! Ooh! I have a horse question!
But first, for the sake of establishing context, the entire scope of my horse breed knowledge is as follows:
Clydesdale--Gigantic, furry-hoofed horses that make us all think of beer. Host to one of the few instances where "beautiful" and "monster" can be heard in the same sentence.
Belgian--A breed of horse known as Belgian.
My question, which is illustrative of my love of "est"s is this: One of these breeds is the largest in all the land, and the other takes second place. But which is which?
This relates to an argument I once had with someone who likely knew as little about horses as I.
|
|
coccatino
Ghostbuster
whose baby are you?
Posts: 588
|
Post by coccatino on Jul 7, 2007 11:19:13 GMT -5
Huckle- Belgians and Clydesdales are actually usually comparable in size, with some Belgians growing larger. Historically, Belgians hold the records for biggest horses ever, though, as some of them grow to be absolute monsters. Current tallest horse in the world is a Belgian from Iowa who is 6'7" at the highest part of his back. He is absolutely ridiculously large and his name is Radar The largest ever known Clydesdale was 6'6" at the highest point of his back. PS- Sue, Loved your review
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Jul 7, 2007 15:46:41 GMT -5
Y'know what? I answered your question, Huckle. Did I not hit send?! Sheesh. I'm sorry!
Coccatino is right that the largest living horse is a Belgian named Radar. He stands 19.3 and a half hands (a hand is four inches) at the wither which is at the highest part of his back. That translates to, I think, 6'7.5". Necks and heads are never counted for height, so add those on to get the complete idea. Radar weighs 2,400 lbs. Radar consumes 18 pounds of grain, 40 pounds of hay and drinks 20 gallons of water every day.
However, Shires are considered the largest breed of all. They're very closely related to Clydesdales, but I think they get the edge on height. The largest horse ever recorded was indeed a Shire named Samson. He stood 21.2 and a half hands or 7'2.5" and weighed 3,360 lbs.
Incidentally, the largest horse I ever rode was an Anglo-Trakehner who stood 17.3 hands. Gave me vertigo. I just knew you'd want to know.
|
|
|
Post by sarahbot on Jul 8, 2007 3:00:33 GMT -5
However, Shires are considered the largest breed of all. They're so large, hobbits live in them? Obviously, I have nothing to contribute to the conversation. But I just wanted to say that I like Hidalgo. I've seen it a few times and think it's a nice movie for a family night. (We tried branching out, honest, but you should have heard my grandma's "Well, that was interesting" after we made her watch the first episode of Firefly.) I'm kinda disappointed it's not very realistic, but I'm glad to see it getting attention. And I have to sumbit my own didja notice?: that Buffalo Bill is played by none other than J. K. Simmons, aka J.J. Jameson.
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Jul 8, 2007 6:56:30 GMT -5
Is that how a horse's height is usually expressed? Wouldn't it be easier to just say 19.8 hands?
When they measure a horse for purposes of setting a record, do they take into account the shoes? I saw that Dirty Jobs episode about the ferrier, and that horse must have lost a half inch right there when he trimmed the hooves.
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Jul 8, 2007 19:31:23 GMT -5
Is that how a horse's height is usually expressed? Wouldn't it be easier to just say 19.8 hands? When they measure a horse for purposes of setting a record, do they take into account the shoes? I saw that Dirty Jobs episode about the ferrier, and that horse must have lost a half inch right there when he trimmed the hooves. A hand is four inches. Therefore, the height of a 19.3 hand horse is 4x19"+3.5", the measuring to be done from the ground to the withers. I would imagine that when they're looking at confirming a record, the horse would be measured without shoes. I know that ponies who are dangerously close to horse height are always measured without shoes and just after a trim. The difference between a child safe 14.2 hand pony and an equally child safe 14.3 hand horse can be thousands of dollars because horses can't compete in the pony divisions of rated shows. Heh, the best horse I ever owned was 14.3 hands. I got her for peanuts. Drop an inch and I couldn't have afforded her.
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on Jul 8, 2007 22:37:02 GMT -5
However, Shires are considered the largest breed of all. Gar! I had a feeling the largest was going to be an unthought of third breed. Now the person I was arguing with and I will have to determine superiority by some other means. I'm thinking thumb wrestling. Incidentally, the largest horse I ever road was an Anglo-Trakehner who stood 17.3 hands. Gave me vertigo. I just knew you'd want to know. I did, actually. Okay, one more horse question and then I promise I'm done: Is Paint a horse breed in and of itself, or merely a visual descriptor that can be applied to various breeds?
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Jul 9, 2007 15:51:37 GMT -5
Y'know I swear I answered this one this morning too. Is someone playing silly buggers with my posts, or am I totally losing my mind?
Rock-Paper-Scissors is the time honored tradition in my family. Ask Justin. We get intense.
Pinto is the coloration you're thinking of, but Paint is an actual breed. Paint horse bloodlines are very closely related to those of Quarter Horses, but they do breed for the splashy color. If two registered Paints have an offspring with a 'plain brown wrapper' so to speak, that horse can be registered as breeding stock, but as sort of a lesser citizen as it were.
Many breeds besides Paints can carry the pinto patterns, including Saddlebreds, Tennessee Walking Horses, Mustangs, many varieties of ponies (anyone remember Misty of Chincoteague?) and even the occasional Thoroughbred. (The latter is extremely rare, but cool looking.) Even the European Warmblood breeds are starting to welcome funky colors into their midst, including pinto. There's also a Pinto registry, but it's based solely on color, so many of its members are actually cross-registered.
There are two distinct color patterns for pintos; tobiano and overo. A horse that displays characteristics of both is called a tovero. (I happen to own a tovero mare.) It's actually fairly important to recognize which pattern your horse is, because some overos carry the "lethal white gene". If two overos who carry the lethal white are bred, they can produce an all white foal that will die within its first few days. (Hence the term, "lethal white".)
There's more answer than I bet you needed!
Sue
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on Jul 19, 2007 20:56:56 GMT -5
Thanks for the info Sue. Know that if you ever have any questions about videogames, anime, or chocolate drink mixes, I am your go-to guy.
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Jul 19, 2007 21:15:46 GMT -5
Thanks for the info Sue. Know that if you ever have any questions about videogames, anime, or chocolate drink mixes, I am your go-to guy. Ah, chocolate drink mixes. You have a recommendation, sir? (I'll get back to you on the video games.)
|
|